Test Shows DNA Not From Jovin's Yale Adviser

A DNA sample taken from under the fingernails of slain Yale student Suzanne Jovin is not from her thesis adviser, James Van de Velde, the only suspect named by police in the 1998 killing.

New Haven State's Attorney Michael Dearington revealed Friday that DNA obtained from Van de Velde, who has long proclaimed his innocence, did not match the DNA obtained from Jovin's left hand.

Dearington also announced that investigators would be asking colleagues, friends and acquaintances of Jovin to provide DNA samples voluntarily.

Until now, five weeks shy of the third anniversary of the killing, investigators have revealed little about the investigation other than to announce the establishment of a reward and hot line for information.

Van de Velde's DNA sample was taken in his lawyer's office by a private investigator hired by Yale within the past six to eight months. It is known that the DNA obtained from the 21-year-old Jovin was from a man.

Dearington, in a written announcement, said that DNA samples had been obtained from Jovin's former boyfriend, from all male police officers and responding EMTs, and from all but one of the fire department personnel who had access to Jovin's body at the crime scene. All those samples have tested negative.

Investigators from the New Haven Police Department and the state's attorney's office soon will begin requesting DNA samples from those who knew Jovin.

David Grudberg, Van de Velde's lawyer, said he believes that the sample could lead police to the killer, and he expressed disappointment that police have not publicly ruled out his client as a suspect.

"Fingernail scrapings are routinely checked as part of any homicide investigation for forensic evidence of the killer," he said. "I am not the least bit surprised that the male DNA sample received from Suzanne Jovin's fingernails did not match James Van de Velde."

Van de Velde is currently in the Middle East, working as an intelligence officer for the federal government.

Jovin was found stabbed repeatedly on Dec. 4, 1998, in the East Rock section of New Haven. The murder investigation has been stymied by a lack of witnesses and forensic evidence.

Dearington said that until and unless a match is found to the DNA material mixed with Jovin's blood, investigators will not know whether the contributor of the material was an innocent acquaintance or a likely suspect.

The sampling, Dearington said, is intended to either match the DNA with a man Jovin would have encountered through normal circumstances or rule out those men. If friends and acquaintances are ruled out, it increases the odds that the DNA belongs to her killer, authorities said.

Authorities did not say when they had taken the DNA sample from Jovin.

Dearington said that until a match is made, no suspect can be eliminated merely because his DNA does not match the profile.

Scientists at the State Police Forensic Sciences Lab in Meriden were able to glean a measurable amount of DNA mixed with the victim's blood. Modern typing techniques were able to amplify and detect extremely small quantities of DNA, Dearington said.

But scientists were unable to tell the nature of the cellular material that was found, in large part because the "questioned" DNA was mixed with a much greater quantity of Jovin's own blood.

The sampling will not require anyone to give blood. Samples will be taken with a toothbrush-like swab that is softly scraped on the inside of a person's mouth. All sampling will be voluntary, Dearington said, because there is no legal power to force a person to give a sample of DNA.

At a press conference in March, Yale University announced that it was putting up $100,000 in reward money for new information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for Jovin's killing, which occurred about 2 miles from campus. Yale's contribution raised the total reward to $150,000.

Grudberg said that New Haven police have "destroyed" Van de Velde's life by naming him as a suspect. He declined to comment on whether Van de Velde plans to sue the department. There is a three-year statute of limitations on such a suit.